Democracy

It is to make the easy difficult. Would one person be able to take a decision faster or would 10 do faster. When everyone has to be consulted there will always be margin for complaint and no one will be responsible. They take the power for few years and go away. Kingship is for life.

Democracy teaches that you can also become one, come on, take the throne, they create a conspirancy and because 10 are stronger than one they take the throne, but it is only the beginning of problems. If this one is better than each one of the ten, then nomatter they may unite, they can never be better.

Everything is very slow in democracy. In the kingdom the king creates rules with his voice and maintains them with his power. In democracy everyone hides, we all know rule is not good, but it is always due to another one, not me.

In the democracy way of thinking everyone is equally, modestly corrupted as well as virtuous. It is not the environment to grow an exception. Surely God cannot exist amongst them at all, after all, becase we say so. The geratest power is to harnes the wave of the mass oppinion you can create it and steer it and become very great.

In the rules created by the collective mind, from the majority for the majority, there will be always suppression and compromise. Radical steps no one will be able to take. In such times chaos comes and stagnation. You have to stick to the herd or you will die. Decisions are made for pleasing the mass. Strikes etc. Everyone can change the rule, everyone can rule.

For example, in Christianity rebirth is not accepted because in one holy gathering they gathered and decided that the official position of the church regarding rebirth will be "there is no rebirth".

It is not only allowed to speak up in democracy, but a must. Speak up so that you can be heard, but it is only we who get misleaded that something happens like this. Voting, polls, information it becomes a society of clever heads who are happy to speak their opinion and know it won't matter, where they live a life that they know makes no difference.

There is no one to turn to, you can turn to anyone with the same result. We are in a democracy we are the one who rule. This way one is more likely to cheat like with taxes, whom are you cheating, no one, my own self. Will it be different if the country would be represented by a single face, like if you cheat it you cheat a man.

In democracy we are happy to be as we are - others will think about us, for they think the same as i do, they are one of us, I am one of them. There is no difference no desire to make effort, no idol, nothing to strive for. These temporary stars they appear and disappear we know they are also unhappy in their life.

We are exposed to the popular info, popular view etc. For example in science there are so many new, different ideas, but we never hear about them, they have to pass the test of the mass to be accepted, so we have to wait, and they even can be overthrown, but history shows this way inventions came.

It is the community with flat, void faces of "touch me not and ask me not, I am not anyone and you are the same". Whilst the mass grows individuals get smaller under the pressure.

We have come to know there are no common rules. Here one thing is good and there something else. We are the creators of what is good and bad. The way i feel it this way it is. We fight amongst ourselves, but it is also OK, because this is the way power is obtained. In order that i win you have to lose. This way we get confused and also if aim changes every now and again we will just be losing our time.

From the 4 years they rule 1 goes to waste so that one can go into the situation and in balmes for the previous rule and 1 more goes to waste under the effort of the opposition that tastes its coming victory.

This system creates peole who become bossy. They will fix the world. There is a lot of spare time for looking at others. If i prove others wrong, people will vote for me. This misbalanced structure is like many, many people like rulers on the top of the head of the very few who are the subjects. Those at the top are very uneasy for they rest on a thin pilar and those at the bottom are unable to move for everyone from the top cries his own different direction, so they don't know whom to listen to. And this structure is bound to collapse for those at the top grow and those at the bottom become fewer.

And in this democracy, is it normal that we choose a man and can hold him responsible for what he does, because i have chosen him. This way he is bound to listen to me, to become as i am. But also, because not only i have chosen him, but many have chosen him then everyone can hold him responsible, but because we are all different, then who is he to please first, so clash is created amongst us for to take him at my side, so that he listens to me and he becomes like a doll in the hands of children that will be soon thorn apart.

Have you ever read a book on the history of democracy or the different forms of democracy?

What's wrong with strikes? If people had never fought for their rights, we would still be in dark ages and bound by slavery. But it's true, the description Andrey makes of corrupt societies of Kaliyug, made up by corrupt citizens!

However, if there is not even an ideal, how can the world improve? So, in fact theoretically, even a populist, patriarchal monarchy or oligarchy could be acceptable, if rulers were 100% enlightened and altruistic servers of the masses with 100% pure and benevolent intentions!

In the meantime is not democracy the best option?

With strikes it will seem that through upheavel one can attain his aim. It is just the opposite to "better die than to beg". Also strikes are political, because they are organised. Through strikes it becomes evident that one can attain through asking, as opposed to that we should receive without even asking. And this tendention even spreads to the human relations where one maintains his interests with sulking.

Our aim is to be content with whatever circumstances, but strike counts on the people's discontentment and encourages it. Individually even many of the people will rather say "yes the salary is small, but what can i do", but there comes someone else (from the syndicates) that says "no, you should plead" and goes to everyone end organises them. Of course the syndicate person is content with his salary. Practically his work is just to boost. There are so many useless type of work there created now - like observer of others - if they are are doing OK.

This is the principle that the force rules rather than the right. If you don't use force your right will not be observed. Other is that your right no one can take away.

Have you ever read a book on the history of democracy or the different forms of democracy?

The democracy that is written in the books is not the same as the one we live in.

Democracy could easily fix the problems within the BKWSU.

In my opinion, in the BKWSU there is democracy already and this is the cause of the problems. I believe when there are more than one - two, three people that take decision it is a small from of democracy.

We should not be misguided that because there are totalitarian methods then it is a totalitarian rule. Even in democracy these can exist.

Democracy means that the one who rules does not have the quality to do so. He is like a subject, so the methods he will adopt will not be royal.

See also how is Dadi Janki made the head. She is voted for by the family and not appointed by BapDada.

In my opinion, in the BKWSU there is democracy already and this is the cause of the problems ... Democracy means that the one who rules does not have the quality to do so. He is like a subject, so the methods he will adopt will not be royal.

And how long have you spent in or studying the BKWSU ... what is your direct experience of this?

See also how is Dadi Janki made the head. She is voted for by the family and not appointed by BapDada.

She wasn't. It was "decided" by a tiny unelected and unrepresentative minority ... and then decreed to the mass. This was recorded as "chosen by The Family ... begging the question, "who are The Family?" because she was not chose by the masses. Who is it that consider they are "The Family"?

If there was a free and fair election within the BK Family, who do you think would have won?

Perhaps this is a question we could ask and have a straw poll about.

The election was just as secret and even more undemocratic than the election of a Pope (which is saying something), an example of which it most resembles, e.g. the secrecy about the voting and deliberations. Would she have won? Probably because she is so famous, a minor personally cult in her own right. I suppose they need someone perceived as "powerful" to hold together the BKWSU.

Your knowledge of democracy appears to be limited to what you have seen on TV. One element of democracy that you ignore is that of "accountability". The other is simple bureaucracy and administration. The PBK dream, that Virendra Dev Dixit sweeps into power in Madhuban, the whole family falls back into one and that he is able of taking every decision, answering ever question of Shrimat, ruling it all is fine ... as long as it is not tested out by reality. It is more than one person can do. It is even more than one god can do.

It strikes me that the BKWSU bureaucracy is quite large now. Being a bureaucrat, good or bad, is not the same as being "spiritual". Just like democracy, some people are betting at playing it than others.

We should extend this discussion to future visions of future politics. I think the whole think of "Royal" stinks. I think Lekhraj Kirpalani's vision of the Imperial Golden Age is pathetic to the point of imbecility and reeks of his upwardly mobile adoration of the British and Rajput customers he profited from in his lifetime. It is such basic psychology and rooted in his own delusions of grandeur of being God Brahma. All those images and statues of gold and silk laden lord and ladies ... the greater wonder is how, on the wave of a wand, it is all going to come about.

Virendra Dev Dixit appears to be a little bit more radical and Gandhian but still trapped to some degree by the foundations of Gyan. There were never Emperors that rule the earth. It has always been to a lesser or greater extent an anarchy. Unfortunately an anarchy of equals does not "sell" so well to the sheep and bhagats and so we have the master and subjects game all over again.

Who is it that consider they are "The Family"?

If BKs and PBKs are to unite, do any BKs/PBKs here or elsewhere consent to Dadi Janki's new role and all the other roles played, noticeably Dadi Ratanmohini who is now the "3rd" of the "living Trimurti" (terms in quotes are mine to mean there have been always and now still 3 living Dadis as heads of the BKWSU). How about ShivBaba (Virendra Dev Dixit), does he approve ?

If BKs and PBKs are to unite, do any BKs/PBKs here or elsewhere consent to Dadi Janki's new role and all the other roles played, noticeably Dadi Ratanmohini who is now the "3rd" of the "living Trimurti" (terms in quotes are mine to mean there have been always and now still 3 living Dadis as heads of the BKWSU). How about ShivBaba (Veerendra Dev Dixit), does he approve ?

If BKs and PBKs are to unite, I think most PBKs will accept Dadi Janaki in whatever role she is assigned by ShivBaba (through Baba Virendra Dev Dixit). The basic idea is that the entire Brahmin family should be united under one God Father in corporeal form.

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

In the beginning of democracy not everyone had the voice to vote, e.g. the slaves did not have this right, so it is the initial form of democracy. We cannot expect it will jump without development. What we aim is self-rule. It is not the kingship that we recognize in history. it is a rule a community and organisation a way of life for which we cannot find traces which has not been existent.

Why should we talk about uniting of the BK and PBK whilst their core conceptions are just the same. We are not to create any new rules and regulation. They are there in the Murlis. Our complaint is that most of the BKs don't even follow them. This is the reason for disunity. It will not be any official rule but a family. We are not supposed to ask every time, someone is not to take decisions all the time, we are supposed to know what should be done. That why we learn.

It is this family principle that is opposed to the another form of rule that is artificially created. One is bound to take decisions based on his preferences and because we are all visious in this rule it is only that it looks as if woman are independent, they are influenced by men. In a gathering polarity comes because woman and men gather together. It can be a peaceful place if there is a family prinicple. a single man or single woman are not that powerful as they can be together.

Peace can be there if there are few people. Now each second in the world somewhere a killing happens, somewhere someone is born, somewhere it is day, somewhere is night so many things happen all the time. What is this athmosphere we live in.

If the world consisted of a small world and when it is time to sleep it is time for sleeping everywhere, if it is time for lunch it is lunch-time in the whole world, what a peace will this be if the whole world is one family with one way of life, one type of food, one language.

There will not be any need for any rule. This pure form of natural anarchy will be more organised than any man-made organisation if everyone is taking care for his own well being, looking at his own self. It is only an illusion that this way interests will clash. We all desire same things.

Now it is very popular the eco way of life so people go to inhabit lands to live like this, to work the land with their two hands, to build the house themselves and it is seen that their time it totally occupied with their own things, they hardly manage to look at whatever others do. Natural unity will be created when facing common things.

In fact, we are so weak. If we are left on our own to face the nature (at present), to care for everything with our own two hands, we will hardly survive. We are delicate creation. Our power is not in our hands, but in our heads. That’s why we expect nature to become pure and natural provider.

And this ruling the whole world is not like we know it. Becuse it is like both monarchy and democracy together that people vote for the king. King is you Father whom you naturally love as he do. He treats you as his own child (in the best possible way). Now some houses are even like this that fathers are like dictators to their children. It is said that the familly, the home is the kingdom and this can work well if king and queen are both good if they love each other and their children.

I believe the true ruler never says what should be done and there is no violence used and peole don't feel as if something is imposed on them. They feel they are the masters, because they have the feedom. There are no desires that are not fulfilled and no limits where one has to stop. The true ruler is ruler by nature and othes accept him, like in the herd we live together and the most powerful one becomes the leader, because we all see he hunts the best of all.

The subjects never have to ask or wonder. So natural harmony of vibration where we instinctively know what is good and right and do this and this is good for all and there is no argue amongst us about anything. We all bath in same waters. Everyone is living his way of life in a way he things it should be from inside and not based on any other rules imposed from outside. I think this is exacly what we are trying to do now to get in touch with this inner i and overthrow any other human rule.

In a democracy the same decision will not be taken twice, because it is based on discussion. Someone will be more powerful today, someone else tomorrow. There won't be stable principles.

Fight and competition are there written in the basic rules of democracy that eliminate fair play. If people can give and take positions by other people in their ambition they forget equality.

If people are denied things, they will compete. Create poverty and it will create crime, and many other problems. Then "they" can blame the criminals, meanwhile "they" are the real criminals.

Spiritual poverty comes first, I presume it then makes it easier to manipulate the rest out of the ignorance created from removing spiritual knowledge.

An independent judiciary (judges and legal system) is a pretty cool element of democratic social system.

So is a separation of church and state. (I suppose one could argue this does happen in the Golden Age as there is no church ... the deities live free from god or godlessly).

Do you really believe that is all the BKWSU fell to Virendra Dev Dixit and the family came together, that Virendra Dev Dixit could run the whole 900,000 strong show himself?

How would he do it? Via committees? Who would elect them? Practical alternatives please.

An independent judiciary (judges and legal system) is a pretty cool element of democratic social system.

But how can it be independent? Do you believe it is normal for some people to judge others and based on laws that some third people had created. The law makers are dependent people (as anyone) so are the judges and lawyers. They depend on their friends and families, colleagues and people's opinion, on their food and life style, their car, the tv and their professors from the university, they depend on the mood, based on the how is the weather like and lastly moral. They heave hearts. Whether they wish or not they take side.

It is only for to say it like this that it is independent. We all know that today if you have a good lawyer he will turn the case in your favour, because it is not a matter of justice but of tricks.

To start with i don't think man is entitled to create laws leave alone judging others on them. I think this is the mistake that we have made that from players in the game of life we had become creators of the game.

Today democracy has fallen so much that one buys his votes. He pays for to take power, because power and position bring benefits. People that go in the parliament and people that become judges are not special. This systems starts from school. There is a ladder of success and techniques to reach a position. The system is created by those who create it for their own good. Whatever they are, this is what they will be creating and this system works for few. The worst is that people start thinking that they are entitled to power and position and have the right to create laws and judge. Same happens at home and at work. I give you food so I am your master you have to obey me. If you do wrong you are wrong in front of me.

This human court is wrong, because if human can judge human then he can also forgive him. And because laws, humans, judges are all different then what is good and bad is not clear. In this state something is a crime, at other state not, so people are very confused, because they don't know how to live. Who knows who will come in power tommorow and what will their politics be, so one lives in fear. Whatever is good today, tommorrow may become bad, and they don't know their real state. There is no check. To be a criminal depends on your power, position and money. This is also part of Christianity this system of paying for your sins. You pay to the chirch and your sins are absolved. So billionaires will be the purest.

And there is no escape from this cycle, because we are all trapped in it. We are all corrupted. We search for someone who is not corrupted, but when we find him we make him corrupted too. Like the illness spreads. In a pile of cherries one rotten one will spoil all, nomatter how much fresh cherries you may put next to it, it will not bе infected with health, but the other way round.

Regarding the matter of the choice and vote...who is higher the one who choses or the one who is chosen? The one who has the right to choose has authority over the things he chooses. So why not the vote-givers go to the parliament, but the vote takers. It is so mixed up that first you thing the ordinary people rule - they choose, but then they become subjects to the ones they chose. And those who rule do so, for to rule just 4 more years, so they please the people. Indeed people are the real rulers, one may say, but then they just change places again in the next elections - the ordinary man becomes a minister and the minister becomes an ordinary man again and this can happen few times. It all leads to lost identity. One loses himself, because he does not own, he does not know his self. He can occupy any seat and any seat can be taken from him.

Parliament creates laws and courthouse applies it. Work is separated, so that the responsibility can vanish, like when they put a mask over the head of the head-choppers. One should not be dependent on the other. One should not know what the other one does.

Any social structure that is created by human will be artificial. It will be based on some temporary criteria or form of consciousness of the body that will not include everyone and will be partial. This hierarchy that is created now is based on the soul that never vanishes and not on temporary bodily factors, and thought by the Supreme Soul who is always a soul, and this rule is correct and righteous, but when this system changes the world suffers.

Amen, but is not the 'hierachy' partial too?